Don’t Fall for the Hypocrisy of Jim Acosta

By Nick Hamilton | United States

The time has finally come. CNN’s Jim Acosta has crossed the line and had his press credentials revoked by President Trump. I wrote an article back in September about this, which you can read here. I’m honestly a little surprised this actually happened. However, it was the right thing to do.

Acosta and the Press Conference

At Wednesday’s press conference, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked a question about the migrant caravan and tried to lecture President Trump on why he thinks this caravan isn’t an invasion. President Trump simply stated after that that they had a difference of opinion on the matter and that Acosta should let him run the country. Seems reasonable, right? After that, President Trump proceeded to call on another reporter, however, Acosta just wasn’t finished. Even after President Trump called on another reporter, Acosta still tried to ask questions. When a White House intern tried to take the microphone away from Acosta, he proceeded to grab onto the mic and forcefully push down on her arm.

Nevertheless, the media is portraying this incident as nothing more than an attempt for President Trump to dodge a tough question from Acosta. That is a blatant lie. Trump had already called on another reporter. There were a lot of reporters at this press conference, and I’m sure Trump wanted to get to as many as he could.

However, when Acosta wouldn’t give up the mic, the President did something that the media hated. First of all, he answered the bogus question about the Russia investigation. He then took a couple of seconds to walk away from the podium. President Trump also proceeded to, as he has done before, turn off the mic of Jim Acosta.

A Rude Reporter

“CNN should be ashamed of itself to have you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. The way you treat Sarah Sanders is horrible. The way you treat other people is horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.”  -Trump to Acosta

Trump isn’t wrong. As I have outlined, Jim Acosta is one of the rudest reporters in the liberal media. He consistently thinks he has the right to overpower other reporters. People don’t just lash out at him for no reason; they do so because of his lack of respect for the industry. Mark Dice, a conservative YouTube commentator, put together a short compilation of his most unprofessional moments that justify Trump’s outburst. You can view it here. CNN has claimed that Acosta is just trying to ask questions that the American people want answers to. My question to CNN, however, is that if that’s truly the case, why won’t another reporter ask them? If it is truly an important question, then Acosta is not the only person capable of asking it.

Other Media Attacks

Acosta is not the only reporter Trump has attacked this week. CNN’s Brooke Baldwin had a few choice words for the President in her daily show on CNN. Yamiche Alcindor, a journalist for PBS, tried to question Trump’s rhetoric of calling himself a nationalist at a recent Houston rally, linking him with white nationalism. I was very privileged to be able to attend that rally, and it was quite clear he was speaking only of United States nationalism; there was no mention of race or any discriminatory language. Trump has denounced the KKK and Alt-Right nationalists on many occasions. Thus, it is not surprising that such questions annoy him.

Later in the press conference, April Ryan, a CNN contributor, had the same problem Jim Acosta did; she tried to ask a question during another reporter’s time. Trump told her to “sit down,” because he was answering a question from another reporter. Nonetheless, she kept interrupting.

Then, on November 9th, as Trump was leaving the White House, reporters swarmed him. Many asked him about April Ryan: why he chose to call her “nasty” and “a loser” because of her reporting. Then, Abby Phillip, another reporter, asked Trump about Whitaker’s involvement with the Russia investigation. Trump couldn’t answer that, and said: “It’s up to him.” But then, Phillip responded by saying, “Do you want him to rein in Robert Muller?”

“What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, and you ask a lot of stupid questions,” replied Trump.

Attacks Against Black Women?

Now, of course, Baldwin had something to say about this. But what did she choose to say? She chose to try and say that Trump was wrong for these attacks. But read closely. He was wrong to say this because they were black women. She didn’t even acknowledge what happened with Jim Acosta, a white male, who got it worse than all three of thee reporters. Why is it only bad when Trump negatively targets black female reporters?

Now, if he only ever criticized black women, then perhaps her accusations would make more sense. But, this is not the case: Trump regularly slams people of all races, removing any likelihood of racist intent.

Baldwin, thus, appears to be playing the race card. If we want to truly live in a society free of racism, it starts with Brooke Baldwin. It starts with The View and Jimmy Kimmel, who have also employed this narrativeThe color of someone’s skin and someone’s gender are completely irrelevant to their journalistic ability. If you believe otherwise, then you’re part of the problem. Baldwin is trying to say that just because they’re black women, they are immune to criticism. This is true for neither them nor Acosta.

The Tucker Carlson Incident

On the contrary, let’s talk about a real attack on a journalist. This week, Antifa protesters swarmed the house of Fox News host Tucker Carlson. His wife had to hide in the pantry, and everyone on the right was angry. Why aren’t Brooke Baldwin and Jim Acosta upset with this?

Sally Kohn, a writer for CNN, did publish an article saying that the protest went too far. She deserves credit for that, as it was quite an admirable thing to do. But to Acosta and Baldwin: why are attacks only worth criticizing when they are against you? This shows a clear double standard: one that does not represent good moral faith.


Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

All You Need to Know About The American Capitalist Party

Kaycee Ikeonu | Canada

Libertarians and Objectivists are often lumped into the same general category in political discourse as “libertarians”, despite the fact that Objectivists often try to distinguish themselves from the broader libertarian label. The founder of Objectivism, for example, Ayn Rand, famously described libertarians as “hippies of the right” and completely rejected comparisons between the two ideologies. However, with the formation of a new pro-liberty party, the American Capitalist Party, comparisons to the Libertarian Party are to be expected.

The American Capitalist Party was founded on the principles of reason, individual rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism. It’s co-founders are Mark Pellegrino and Joe Sanders, and it’s philosophy is heavily influenced by the works of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism.

So what makes the American Capitalist Party different from the Libertarian Party?

Superficially, it is obvious that both parties are advocates of individual rights and limited government. According to Mark Pellegrino however, it is the philosophical base of both parties that makes them significantly different. In an interview with the Objective Standard, Pellegrino argued that the ACP views man as a rational animal influenced by reason and reason only. He says:

“The defining difference between the ACP and the Libertarian Party is our respective orientations toward liberty and government, which, in turn, are based on our respective views of human nature and morality. In short, the ACP views men as rational animals—beings who live and prosper by using their minds to understand the world, to produce values, and to trade by mutual consent to mutual advantage. We regard such activities as moral because they advance human life. And we see liberty as a necessary condition for exercising the faculty of reason because, in order to act on your rational judgment, you must be free to do so.”

Pellegrino contrasts this philosophy from that of the Libertarian Party, claiming that the LP has no strong, common philosophical grounding. He says:

“Libertarians don’t see rational thinking, rational action, and moral rights as absolute requirements of human life. Rather, they regard freedom from force—or the “non-aggression principle”—merely as a requirement of economic action and thus as politically good.”

It is evident that the philosophy of the American Capitalist Party is based on a specific moral framework. But this view of politics could be a bit too extreme for mainstream Americans to handle. For example, consistent with the views of Ayn Rand, the ACP advocates the complete separation of the state from the economy. This includes the abolition of many government-run programs, including schools, hospitals, social programs, and regulations. Perhaps the most extreme form of this is the abolition of government regulation in the economy. The ACP website states:

“We support an immediate abolition of all environmentalist legislation that restricts the right of U.S. companies to produce energy, and the establishment of a free market in energy…We confidently maintain that a free market in energy, similar to a free market in computer technology, will attract brilliant minds dedicated to meeting mankind’s energy needs across all technologies—and that to do so effectively, government must be legally restricted from any and all forms of interference.”

Mark Pellegrino acknowledged that these policies wouldn’t be implemented overnight, but would be phased out over time. Insofar as campaigning is concerned, Pellegrino says Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Arizona, and Texas could be the first “battleground states” for the ACP.

The ACP is indeed a unique party quite distinct from the Republican, Democratic and even Libertarian Parties. But one could ask if it’s niche and concentrated philosophy would be attractive to most Americans today.

To learn more about the American Capitalist Party, click here.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

 

The Libertarian Party: A History From Hospers to Johnson

John Keller | United States

The Libertarian Party

John Hospers (1918-2011) was the first Libertarian presidential candidate. He defined Liberty best in 1971, during his campaign for President in 1972, that “Liberty is the absence of coercion by other human beings.” The Libertarian Party began forming on July 17, 1971, with a meeting of David Nolan, John Hospers, Ron Paul, Tonie Nathan, Edward Crane, and others. The new political party was officially announced January 31, 1972. The first platform of the party focused on ensuring a gold-backed currency and a return to the classical liberal thoughts held by many of the Founding Fathers of America. The Libertarian Party’s goal was, and is, to shrink government and return rights and liberty to the citizens of the United States of America.

“The only proper role of government, according to libertarians, is that of the protector of the citizen against aggression by other individuals. The government, of course, should never initiate aggression; its proper role is as the embodiment of the retaliatory use of force against anyone who initiates its use.” – Dr. John Hospers

A Brief Introduction to the Philosophy

The philosophy of libertarianism is rooted in texts from the Age of Enlightenment (1685-1815), such as the theories of John Locke (1632-1704), in his The Second Treatise of Civil Government, written in 1689 as well as the philosophies and writings of Thomas Paine (1737-1809), who wrote Common Sense in 1776.

In addition, the Libertarian Party has been influenced by many modern-day philosophers as well. The most notable of these philosophers is Ludwig von Mises (1891-1973) who wrote Human Action in 1949. His philosophies dominate the Libertarian Party’s economic platform, and his work was so influential the Mises Caucus formed within the party. After his death, the Mises Institute was founded in Auburn, Alabama in 1982 with the mission, “To advance the Misesian tradition of thought through the defense of the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.”

History of the Libertarian Movement (1972-2000)

The Libertarian Party has historically been the strongest third party in the 20th century. In 1972, John Hospers received 3,674 votes. In 1996, the presidential ticket of Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen received 485,759 votes.

As the presidential election began to get started in 1976 there were serious doubts in the minds of conservative voters on the integrity of the Republican Party following the Watergate Scandal in 1972. The Libertarian Party become a place to vent frustration with government, and with their message for smaller government and personal accountability attracted many new voters.

The 1976 presidential ticket consisted of former state representative of Vermont Roger MacBride for president and California lawyer David Bergland for vice president. His campaign focused on issues, such as ending the Federal Reserve and returning to a gold-backed currency, as well as non-interventionist foreign policy. Democratic nominee “Jimmy” Carter spoke of being an outsider “untainted” by the politics of Washington D.C. while Republican nominee Gerald Ford focused on his ability as the chief executive, relying on his incumbent status to help carry the election in his favor.

By the end of the campaign, Roger MacBride and David Bergland had won over 172,557 votes, almost 170,000 more votes than the first ticket just four years prior and having ballot access to thirty-two states.

In 1980 the Libertarian Party hoped to capitalize on the moment of the previous year and nominated Ed Clark, who had received almost 378,000 votes in his campaign for Governor of California in 1978, for the presidency. David Koch, a successful businessman and vice-president of Koch Industries. The election began heavily contested.

President Carter faced immense backlash for his foreign policy in the Middle East and many Americans had deemed it improper for an actor to be president. The Libertarian Party and the Libertarian presidential ticket was seen as a viable third option. Although Reagan won in an electoral landslide, the Libertarian ticket received almost one million (921,128) votes.

The Reagan Administration proved to be very popular, and in the 1984 election, it showed. Former vice presidential candidate, now presidential candidate, David Bergland was only able to generate a quarter million votes.

One of the most iconic, although not the most successful, presidential runs of the Libertarian Party took place in 1988. Former congressman Ron Paul of Texas received the nomination and Andre Marrou, a former member of the Alaska House of Representatives, was nominated as the vice presidential candidate. The campaign Ron Paul ran was described by one reporter as a “Kamikaze Campaign” for being so dedicated to the issues while he stood, according to the journalist, “as much chance as I” at becoming president. Ron Paul focused on non-interventionist foreign policy, ending the Federal Reserve, getting the government out of education, and focusing on returning the American dollar to the gold standard. On top of these key issues, former Congressman Ron Paul made a pillar of his campaign the War on Drugs.

Although unsuccessful, the Ron Paul for President Campaign raised the campaign standard and redefined the Libertarian Party, highlighting the power and ability of a grassroots campaign as he raised over $2 million in donations.

In 1992 Ron Paul’s former running mate, Andre Marrou, took the nomination and continued the message of Ron Paul, but faced limited success as Americans flocked to Ross Perot, an independent from Texas who attracted over 19,000,000 votes.

Following the success of Ross Perot, the Libertarian Party knew that large success against the two-party duopoly was possible. Harry Browne received the 1996 presidential nomination. As a veteran, he pressed Bob Dole for claiming “My generation won [World War Two]” and his strong ties to the past and not to the future. When election time came he had attracted nearly half a million votes – losing votes to the popular Ross Perot who gained over 8,000,000 votes for the Reform Party.

In 2000, Harry Browne again took the nomination and ran a similar campaign to the campaign run in 1996. He won nearly the same number of votes but served a larger role.

In the controversy over the election in Florida, where Ralph Nader arguably detracted enough support from Al Gore to allow George W. Bush to win the state, the story in the state of Washington is often forgotten.

Harry Brown’s campaign attracted enough votes, alongside Pat Buchanan’s campaign for president, to swing the state away from George W. Bush and in Al Gore’s favor, ensuring the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, Al Gore, took the state, winning him an additional 11 electoral votes.

As the century turned and George W. Bush took the White House, the Libertarian Party began to go through a reformation process.

New Age Libertarianism (2004-2012)

In the twenty-first century, the Libertarian Party began to reform its priorities in its platform. The reformation became highlighted in the 2004 Libertarian National Convention as it became the most contested presidential primary in the thirty-two-year history of the Libertarian Party.

The three leading candidates were Aaron Russo, Gary Nolan, and Michael Badnarik. Aaron Russo was leading in pre-convention polls for the nomination. He was running his campaign on criticizing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and ending the War on Drugs.

Gary Nolan, polling second, focused his campaign on Anti-Bush doctrine. He planned to focus campaigning on his home state Ohio with the goal of swinging the state away from Bush and winning the state for the Libertarian Party. His platform consisted of repealing the USA PATRIOT Act, ending the war in the Middle East and bringing home the troops, while rallying against the income tax.

Going into the convention Michael Badnarik was predicted the least likely of the three major candidates to win the nomination. His campaign was built on the principles of laissez-faire economics.

With Aaron Russo in the lead, it seemed clear that the Libertarian Party was beginning to switch away from the Ron Paul Era of economic focus and begin focusing on social issues, with economic policy on the back burner; however, a surprise came at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention.

On the first ballot, the vote counts for the nomination were all within twelve votes of each other; with Russo gaining 258, Badnarik 256, and Nolan 246. On the second nomination ballet, Nolan was eliminated and surprisingly endorsed Badnarik. In the final vote for the nomination, Badnarik took the nomination 417 votes to 348 for Russo, with six delegates voting “None of the Above”.

Although the focus on economics continued in this election cycle, a focus on social issues was beginning to grow within the party. Badnarik began his run immediately, trying to build off the momentum of the convention, but he struggled at first getting the Libertarian Party on board, especially those who had supported Aaron Russo who felt “cheated” at the convention.

By election day, the highest poll for the Libertarian ticket was at 5%, a poll conducted in New Mexico. On election day Badnarik, who held high hopes, pulled in about 400,000 votes, only about 0.32%. Following the results, he pursued, with support from Green Party candidate David Cobb, a recount in the state of Ohio, which President George W. Bush had won by about 100,000 votes. If the recount had been “successful” then Ohio would have swung to be a blue state, and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) would have been president.

In 2008 the election became key as there was a rejection of the Bush intervention policies. Former congressman Bob Barr was nominated by the Libertarian Party to run for president. He held high hopes going into the general election as many conservatives were growing tired of the pro-war leanings of the Republican Party, and the dedicated hawk candidate John McCain (R-AZ). However, Barack Obama (D-IL) came out as a strong anti-war candidate and supported social liberty and Barr began losing support. He tried to shift focus towards an economic policy where he believed he held the edge over the other candidates, but the American people were more focused on issues regarding foreign policy, and Barr was only able to gain a half million votes come election day. As the election cycle wore down the Libertarian Party began to strategize for 2012.

Libertarianism in the Modern Age (2012-Present)

In 2012 the upcoming nomination for president at the Libertarian National Convention was projected to be a toss-up between former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and Libertarian Party Vice Chair R. Lee Wrights. Going into the convention, Gary Johnson was being seen as an unlikely choice. He was a former two-term Republican governor in the state of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. He had joined the Libertarian Party December 2011, just six months before the national convention after he failed to gain any traction in the Republican New Hampshire primary. On the other hand, R. Lee Wrights had been a member of the Libertarian Party since 2000 and had served for two years, prior to the 2012 Libertarian National Convention, as Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party (2004-2006).

Just as in 2004, the convention turned out to be an upset. Gary Johnson, on his platform of fiscal responsibility and social equality, won a surprising landslide victory at the convention, receiving 419 delegates (70.4%). Jim Gray, a California judge, received the nomination for vice president. The pro-immigration and anti-intervention ticket won considerable support as anti-war Republicans who could not support Mitt Romney voted Libertarian. Gary Johnson, on election day, made Libertarian Party history by receiving 1,275,971 votes.

Gary Johnson continued to fight for the Libertarian message and in 2016 sought to be renominated for the Libertarian presidential ticket. He was renominated in a landslide, gaining more than 30% more delegates than the runner-up Austin Petersen. Bill Weld, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, was selected as the vice presidential nominee.

The 2016 election proved to be pivotal. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld began speaking throughout America on the message of peace and prosperity, speaking to the people about pro-immigration policy, low taxes, balanced budgets, and more. In short, the campaign rested on the idea that the government should stay out of your wallet and out of your bedroom. Bill Weld ran a strong campaign under Gary Johnson, and together they received 4,489,235 votes for the message of peace and prosperity.

Leading to the 2020 Libertarian National Convention much is unknown, but it is clear that even if there is not another Bill Weld or Gary Johnson, the idea and message of Libertarianism will spread. As the message spreads and more and more people are informed of the principles of peace and prosperity, it is clear that the breakout year for the Libertarian Party is coming soon as momentum grows.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Interview with the Leader of the Libertarian Party of Ontario

By Brennan Dubé | Canada

The Libertarian Party of Ontario has seen impressive growth over the past several years. I had the pleasure of interviewing new party leader Rob Ferguson to find out the party’s plan on how to improve, sustain and grow.

The party only fielded 5 libertarians in the 2003 election. This year, however, 117 candidates ran for office. This growth is immense and is the key to making a fringe party move towards legitimacy. In the 2011 race, the libertarians fielded 51 candidates out of a possible 107 and garnered 0.45% of the popular vote. But in 2014, improvements continued as the libertarians ran 74 out of a possible 107 and scored 0.81% of the vote.

With recent riding expansion, the 2018 election map for Ontario now has 124 districts. The Ontario libertarians were able to field 117 candidates (94.3%): almost a full slate. Even though the party only got 0.75% of the popular vote, they nonetheless picked up a record high of 42,918 voters across the province. The libertarians have now placed fifth in each of the last three provincial elections in Ontario. With the number of candidates that they ran last time, they are now a significant minor party in Ontario politics. I had the privilege of interviewing former deputy leader and now current leader of the Ontario Libertarian Party, Rob Ferguson.

Dubé: So, you’ve been a part of several political parties in the past, NDP, Family Coalition and now the Libertarians. can you go through how your experiences were with each party and how you came to the realization that the Libertarians are the best party for you?

Ferguson: I grew up in a conservative family and often helped to campaign as a youth for candidates in my hometown of Brantford. I can even remember our families home was turned into a campaign HQ on some occasions. As I grew up I decided to become a member of the New Democratic Party of Ontario. My stint with the party lasted less than a year after I realized my views didn’t fully align with the party. I found myself then exploring the Family Coalition Party of Ontario. I had always been about family values and the party initially seemed to align well with my views. During my time with the party I worked to train candidates, I even ran for office in the 2007 provincial election.

During the time leading up to the provincial election in 2011, I found that my views didn’t fully align with the party and following some disappointing circumstances I left the party and just hours later found myself in contact with some executive members of the Ontario Libertarian Party. I ended up coordinating and training 12 candidates in the 2011 provincial race, and I ran myself as well. I have always been about family values and the party’s positions on individual liberties, property rights and personal responsibility fit me perfectly. I felt at home with the party, I came to the realization that yeah, this was the party for me.

Dubé: How would you define libertarianism and who are some of your biggest political influences?

Ferguson: From a philosophical standpoint, libertarianism is so unique and when you start to apply the basic principles of libertarianism to issues we see brought up every election you see that yes, this makes sense. The notion of personal responsibility and property rights are key points within the libertarian ideology. One of my biggest influences is former Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier. He is a prime exemplar of classical liberalism in Canadian politics. I also find myself often quoting Margaret Thatcher. One quote of hers I often find myself repeating is, “The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

Dubé: As the new leader of the Ontario Libertarian Party, how have you helped to ease the transition out of the Allen Small era? Also, how closely did you work with Allen Small during his time as party leader?

Ferguson: Allen Small did a ton for this party as its leader, and he has left us in a very good place going forward. I definitely worked as close as I could with Allen during his time as leader and we spoke with each other very often, maybe even on a day to day basis. Allen did a great job as the leader; he was always on top of things and he put a ton into his job. Now that I have taken the mantle from him I think that the number one priority should be to amend our party’s constitution and make it more coherent with the digital age. This would open doors to our membership and make things a lot better within the party.

Dubé: You once stated during a debate that the Liberals are about big government, the Conservatives are about big business, the NDP are about big unions and the Greens are about big trees, was this something you previously thought of before going into the debate?

Ferguson: This was something that just came to me during the debate. We were in a school for the debate and I looked to the back and saw some tree paintings on the wall and the “big tree” line hit me. Actually, this became kind of a coined thing, each debate I saw larger gatherings and people actually said they were coming out now to hear me finish with that line. It became a recurring thing, it was quite funny.

Dubé: What is your opinion on Maxime Bernier’s new party and would you advise Canadian libertarians to join them or stick with Tim Moen and the Libertarian Party of Canada in 2019?

Ferguson: Well it’s refreshing to see more and more liberty minded people putting their names out there are trying to bring legitimate change. I’ve ran many times here in Brantford and I’m seeing more and more liberty minded candidates also run here. However, I am skeptical of the party, what I say is simple, you can either join a new party that may or may not last or you can stick with a movement that’s been growing for 40 years and is seeing its absolute best growth now. I welcome Bernier and his new party to the table but if he was a true Libertarian he would have got up and crossed the floor in the House of Commons. People are free to join whatever party they wish, but as for me, I’m sticking with the Libertarian Party.

Dubé: It’s no secret that the Libertarian Party of Ontario has become well established over the past few election cycles. How can the party maintain and build on this growth?

Ferguson: We’ve seen incredible growth; over the last few elections we’ve seen votes go up, membership go up and candidates go up. To maintain our growth, we need to continue to aim towards running full slates. By updating our party constitution and by-laws and fixing internal policy we can help make modernize the party. A few of the ridings that we weren’t able to fill candidates in were up in Northern Ontario and by targeting those areas in 2022 and continuing to run full slates we can continue to see solid growth and work towards winning seats in the next few election cycles.

Dubé: You’ve run for office many times. What would you say is the most effective way to connect to voters and meet people in the community?

Ferguson: It’s always been tough for me because I am legally blind, so I do not drive. But I’ve found that attending as many events as possible and spreading the message is the best way. In the age now of social media when you spread the message to a few it can reach many so just getting out and speaking to as many people as possible is truly the way to best engage voters. Here in Brantford I think I have succeeded in that, just recently I was out at a store and an individual turned to me and said, “hey, aren’t you Rob Ferguson?” and I laugh because my wife says it seems like we can’t go out anymore without people coming up to me or recognizing me.

Dubé: The Ontario Libertarian Party just wrapped up its Annual General Meeting last weekend. Can you give us some insight on how things went and overall how enthused the members of the meeting were about the party going forward?

Ferguson: Overall, things went very well. We had a good turnout and nearly 70 delegates attended, which is good for our AGM’s. One of the best parts about it was seeing Allen Small come through the door and I realized after a little while that there were three past party leaders present. That to me is quite special; you never just have three past party leaders attend a party’s event. Usually, when you end off your time as party leader, it’s the end of your career and you step back a little. However, to see that these three were still eager to help make a difference and still impact the party was something great.


Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

The Florida Midterm Election Mess: A Recap

Atilla Sulker | United States

The recent midterm elections yet again exemplify the volatility of Florida politics. Like in the 2000 presidential election in which Bush defeated Gore by a small margin following a recount, the sunshine state continues to be plagued by a great confusion in regards to who has been elected.

Florida has been a key swing state for some time. As recent as the 2016 presidential election, it has been the focus of electoral controversy. Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump defeated his opponent Hillary Clinton by a margin of less than 2 percent in the State- Trump leading with 49% and Clinton barely trailing with 47.8%.

In the most recent Senate election, incumbent Florida Republican Governor Rick Scott defeated incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Bill Nelson by a very slim margin of less than 0.5%. Scott won by a mere 12,562 votes, i.e. by 0.2 percentage points. Counties leaning in Nelson’s favor include Miami-Dade, Leon, and Broward Counties. Scott claimed a larger percentage of votes in Miami-Dade than did presidential contender Donald Trump in 2016.

Florida law requires that if a candidate wins by a margin of 0.5% or less, an automatic recount is triggered. Governor Scott filed a lawsuit on November 8th, making the accusation of election fraud. Scott boldly proclaimed: “I will not stand idly by while unethical liberals try to steal an election”. Scott was leading Nelson by around 57,000 votes at the close of the election, but this lead diminished to less than 15,000 within a few days.

Scott also appeared on Hannity recently where he expressed his disappointment with Senator Nelson, accusing his lawyers of trying to steal the election and referring to Nelson as a “career politician”.

In response to Scott’s accusations, on November 8th, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum tweeted: “Mr. @FLGovScott — counting votes isn’t partisan — it’s democracy. Count every vote”.

Broward County has been the center of focus in the election controversy, where a large wave of new votes were discovered after election night. Scott stated on Hannity: “We don’t know how many more votes they’re gonna come up with, but it sure appears they’re gonna keep finding as many votes as it takes to try to win this election”.

Trump responded to the Broward County incident on November 9th: “Mayor Gillum conceded on Election Day and now Broward County has put him “back into play.” Bill Nelson conceded Election – now he’s back in play!? This is an embarrassment to our Country and to Democracy!”

On November 10th, Trump also tweeted: “Trying to STEAL two big elections in Florida! We are watching closely!”

Mayor Gillum, in response to Trump’s November 9th tweet, tweeted:” What’s embarrassing to democracy is not counting every vote — and you, of course. Count every vote.”

One twitter user under the name MaximusM76‏ who claims to be a supporter of Gillum responded to Gillum: “You are wrong Sir. I voted for you.. but you are wrong. NOT every vote should be counted. Fraudulent votes, which encompass several categories, should not count.”

Along with the senatorial race, the gubernatorial race in Florida has also been subject to much controversy. On election night, Representative Ron Desantis was leading Mayor Gillum by enough votes to bypass the 0.5% recount margin, but by November 10th, this lead had shrunk enough to fall within the margin of half a percent.

Gillum announced his concession from the race on election night, but retracted this concession on November 10th. Gillum loudly issued his clarion call: “I am replacing my earlier concession with an unapologetic and uncompromised call to count every vote.”

Florida continues to show its swing state characteristics and its evenly split tendencies. Rick Scott beat his 2010 gubernatorial opponent Alex Sink and 2014 opponent Charlie Crist by margins near 1 percent. These races remain hotly contested, but the razor-thin margins of this month’s elections and the mandatory recounts underscore that it is not an understatement to focus on the significance of the impact of small margins in any major Florida race.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source